Archived: Cambron House

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations, speaking with staff who were supporting people who used the service and looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary, please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People are treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. This means that people will be safeguarded as required.

The provider had systems in place to ensure the service was safely run. Audits were carried out by the registered manager.

Recruitment practice is safe and thorough. No staff had been subject to disciplinary action. Policies and procedures are in place to make sure that unsafe practice is identified and people are protected.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and care plans were designed to meet the needs of people who used the service. Relatives of people who used the service told us that they felt involved in their relatives care, and were able to contribute to their care plan.

People's needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff interacting with people who used the service and saw that they were patient and gave time for people to respond. Care plans included people's interests, likes and dislikes. This ensured that people's preferences were considered as part of their care.

We spoke with relatives of people who used the service who told us that they felt their relative was cared for appropriately. One relative said, 'I have no concerns about the care provided to my relative. They have lived at the home for over ten years.'

Is the service responsive?

The service had an activity co-ordinator who planned social events and daily activities for people who used the service. We observed people taking part in activities that were suitable. People also joined in from a distance which suited their needs.

People received appropriate support to ensure there nutritional needs were met. Care plans told us that staff responded appropriately to issues such as weight loss and difficulties in swallowing. Dieticians and speech and language therapists were consulted where needed.

We spoke with relatives of people who used the service who were able to discuss anything with the manager or the staff. One relative said, 'The managers door is always open and she always makes time for me.'

Is the service well-led?

We spoke with staff that were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They felt able to speak with the nurses or the manager if they needed to. Staff saw the importance of involving people and their relatives to improve the service.

There was a quality assurance system in place which was completed throughout the year. The manager acted on suggestions made and discussed the outcome of the survey with people who used the service and their relatives.

The manager ensured that staff had attended dementia training to develop the service. This helped to provide person centred care for the people who used the service.

We also found the provider was not compliant with assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision and consent to care and treatment. Therefore issued two compliance actions. The provider wrote to us and told us the action they would take achieve compliance.

We found the provider had made improvements to ensure systems were in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

We found care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

The provider had improved systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

We were not able to speak to people using the service because they had complex needs, which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences in a meaningful way. Therefore we observed how support was provided and spoke with five visitors and staff to help us understand people's experiences.

Relatives we spoke with said they were happy with the care people received. One relative told us their parent had lived at the home for over two years and they were very satisfied with the care.

Where people did not have the capacity to give consent to their care and treatment, the provider had not acted in accordance with legal requirements.

We observed people who used the service and found that some people's needs were not being attended to. We saw that some concerns regarding people's care and welfare were not being addressed.

There were no effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. There were areas of the home which were not well maintained and not kept clean. Some staff had not received training in this area.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely.

We found that the premises, and equipment within the home, were damaged to the extent that they could not be cleaned to a sufficient standard to control the risk of infection.

We found that the premises had not been adequately maintained.